A Division Bench enhanced motor accident compensation from Rs. 67,000 to Rs. 1,76,000, addressing adequate remuneration for medical costs, attendant charges, loss of earnings, and non-pecuniary damages including pain, suffering, and permanent disability.
Enhanced the compensation from Rs. 67,000/- to Rs. 1,76,000/- with interest at 6% p.a.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR
M.A.C.M.A. No.609 of 2008
JUDGMENT:
Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in O.P.No.522 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Karimnagar (for short “Tribunal”), the claimants preferred the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the Act”) seeking enhancement of the compensation.
For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in O.P.
The facts in issue are as under:
The petitioner filed an application under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the road accident that occurred on 17.10.1998. It is stated that on that day the petitioner was traveling in a bus bearing No. AP 9 Z 7277 in order to go to Karimnagar and when the bus reached Kondapaka village, a lorry bearing No. AP 21 T 4371 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came from opposite side and dashed the bus, as a result of which the petitioner sustained injuries. In respect of the above incident the police registered a case in Crime No.143 of 1998 against the driver of the lorry. Immediately after the accident, the petitioner was shifted to NIMS Hospital where he was treated as in-patient in the said hospital from 18.10.1998 to 08.11.1998 with inpatient No.9816877. It is further stated that the petitioner was operated on 28.10.1998 for the fracture injuries
sustained by him. It is stated that due to the said injury the petitioner was disabled and is unable to actively involve himself in practicing as a lawyer. According to the petitioner, he was earning Rs.5,000/- per month and due to the injuries, he was bed ridden for nearly one month. Since the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the first respondent, who is the driver of the second respondent and as the said vehicle was insured with the third respondent both of them are made jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. The owner of the RTC bus in which the petitioner was traveling was also made as fourth respondent.
The first respondent and second respondent, driver and owner of the vehicle remained ex parte, while the third respondent, insurer of the vehicle filed its counter denying averments made in the petition. It has also denied the manner in which the accident took place. It was specifically pleaded that there was no negligence on the part of the first respondent and that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. In any event it is stated that the claim made is excessive and exorbitant.
The fourth respondent Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation filed their counter stating that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus as such the Corporation is not liable to pay the compensation and that there was no contributory negligence.
Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:
In support of their case, the claimant examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A16. On behalf of the respondents, RW.1 was examined and marked Ex.B1.
After considering the evidence available on record the Tribunal held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the crime vehicle and awarded a sum of Rs.67,000/- as compensation together with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 were made jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation while the petition against respondent No.4 in the O.P. was dismissed. Challenging the quantum of compensation awarded the present appeal has been filed.
[1] In R.D.Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control India Private Limited the Apex Court held that in its very nature whenever a Tribunal or Court is required to fix the amount of compensation in cases of accident, it involves some guess work, some hypothetical consideration, some amount of sympathy linked with the nature of the disability causes.
In order to award compensation in case of personal injuries the Apex Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and anothe r[2] held as under:
5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following : Pecuniary damages (Special Damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and
miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising: (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage).
(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity). In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii) (a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii)(b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life. Assessment of pecuniary damages under item (i) and under item (ii)(a) do not pose much difficulty as they involve reimbursement of actuals and are easily ascertainable from the evidence. Award under the head of future medical expenses - item (iii) -- depends upon specific medical evidence regarding need for further treatment and cost thereof. Assessment of nonpecuniary damages - items (iv), (v) and (vi) – involves determination of lump sum amounts with reference to circumstances such as age, nature of injury/deprivation/disability suffered by the claimant and the effect thereof on the future life of the claimant. Decision of this Court and High Courts contain necessary guidelines for award under these heads, if necessary. What usually poses some difficulty is the assessment of the loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability - item (ii)(b).
In the light of the principles laid down in the aforementioned cases, it is suffice to say that in determining the quantum of compensation payable to the victims of accident, who are disabled
either permanently or temporarily, efforts should always be made to award adequate compensation not only for the physical injury and treatment but also for the loss of earning, inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities, which would have been enjoyed but for the disability caused due to the accident.
The learned counsel for the appellant mainly submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is unjust and unreasonable and the same needs to be enhanced.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the insurance company submits that after considering the evidence available on record the Tribunal awarded just compensation which needs no interference.
As stated above, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/towards loss of income, Rs.5,000/- towards loss of comfort, Rs.10,500/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.36,689/- towards medical and other expenses.
The only point that arises for consideration is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and equitable if the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 is referred to?
PW.1 in his evidence stated about the manner in which the accident occurred and also the injuries sustained by him. According to him, on the date of accident while he was proceeding from Hyderabad to Karimnagar in an RTC bus bearing No. AP 9 Z 7277 when the bus reached Kondapaka village a lorry bearing No. AP 21 T 4371 driven by the first respondent in O.P. in a rash and negligent manner came in opposite direction and dashed the RTC bus, as a result of which he sustained injuries. Immediately after the accident he was taken to NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad, where he
underwent an operation. According to him, he sustained fracture of his right thigh and also injuries on the body. His evidence is to the effect that his right thigh was fractured up to right ribs and a rod was inserted by an operation. His evidence also discloses that one Dr.L.Narendra Nath, Orthopaedic Surgeon at NIMS Hospital treated him and also performed the operation. His evidence is to the effect that he became permanently disabled and was an inpatient in NIMS, Hyderabad from 18.10.1998 to 08.11.1998 ie. 20 days and incurred an expenditure of Rs.1,64,000/-. He claims to have spent an amount of Rs.36,000/towards special damages, Rs.1,50,000/- towards permanent disability caused due to fracture of right thigh and further claimed a sum of Rs. Rs.50,000/- towards mental shock and agony. He further stated that he is an advocate practising in District Courts, Karimnagar since 1996 and is an income tax assessee vide Pan No. AEPP 5768 P earning Rs.5,000/- per month. He further stated that he was bedridden for nearly six months and was not able attend to his work for nearly a year.
PW.1 was subjected to lengthy cross examination. To a suggestion that he was not earning Rs.5,000/- per month by practicing as an advocate was denied by him. He denied the suggestion that he had no disability now and there is no difficult for his regular work but however admits that he had not filed any disability certificate since he has not undergone the test. He further admits that he is not able to sit or stand for more time.
PW.2 was the doctor who treated the claimant at NIMS Hospital. The evidence of PW.2 is to the effect that the claimant was admitted in NIMS Hospital on 18.10.1998 at 7.20 a.m. as he was involved in road accident. The claimant had a bleeding injury
to his forehand, head injury and fracture of left femur. He deposed that knee injury was managed without operation. On 28.10.1998 the claimant was operated upon, femur was fixed with a nail and was discharged on 08.11.1998. Subsequently, the claimant was treated as out-patient. He was advised not to bear the weights or do normal walking for five months. On the date of giving evidence PW.1 stated that he still has a nail in his right knee which has to be removed by way of an operation. PW.2 in his evidence deposed that the patient has some disability due to internal damage but disability cannot be quantified as there was no scientific guidelines. To a suggestion that the claimant has not sustained any disability was denied by him.
That being the evidence available on record it is to be seen whether the claimant is entitled more what has been awarded by the Tribunal.
As seen from the evidence, immediately after the accident PW.1 was admitted in NIMS hospital and he was in-patient in the said hospital for a period of 20 days.
The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 clearly show that immediately after the accident the claimant was shifted from the scene of offence to NIMS Hospital, where he took treatment as an inpatient for twenty days and thereafter he went back to his native village. Definitely he would have taken the help of a person to attend on his day today needs during his stay in NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad. Subsequently for a period of five months he was treated as outpatient and that he was coming all the way from Karimnagar to Hyderagad to get himself being checked up. That being the position the claimant must have taken the help of an attendant to attend on him during his visit to Hyderabad as well. The Tribunal
also did not take into consideration the transport charges which the claimant would have incurred in getting himself transported from the scene of offence to NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad. Therefore I deem it appropriate to award a sum of Rs.10,000/towards attendant charges and Rs.7,500/- towards transportation and extra nourishment.
Coming to the medical expenses, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.36,689/- though the claimant claimed Rs.1,64,000/-. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that all the medicines were taken in NIMS Hospital and the bunch of bills are produced as Ex.A8. Though the learned counsel for the appellant stated that the claimant has spent Rs.1,64,000/- towards medical bills but a perusal of Ex.A8 show proved to be otherwise. In fact, all the bills which are marked as Ex.A8 put together would come to Rs.68,671/- but the Tribunal awarded only Rs.36,689/- which appears to be on lower side. Having accepted the bills as true and genuine the Tribunal ought to have awarded Rs.68,671/-. Hence the same enhanced to Rs.68,671/-. The Tribunal did not also award any amount towards incidental expenses which the claimant would have incurred while undergoing treatment at NIMS hospital and also during the period of rest. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to award a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards incidental expenses.
Coming to the loss of earnings, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of income during the period of treatment by taking the income at Rs.5,000/- per month. The learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that the said finding is incorrect. Even as per the evidence of PW.2 the claimant was advised not to walk at least for five months. In fact
his evidence is to the effect that he was not attending the Court for nearly one year. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration the evidence of PW.2 I deem it appropriate to award a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards loss of earnings during the period of treatment and for some time thereafter.
Coming to the compensation awarded towards nonpecuniary damages, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/towards loss of comfort, Rs.10,500/- pain and suffering. Definitely the said amount appears to be on a lower side. Relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in K.Suresh V. New India Assurance Company Limited and another[3] the counsel for the appellant submits that the claimant is not only entitled to permanent disability but also for the pain and suffering which he has sustained due to the said injuries.
From the judgment of the Apex Court referred to above it is clear that the claimant is entitled not only for pain and suffering but also towards permanent disability. In the circumstances of the case and since the permanent disability which the claimant had sustained cannot be calculated in terms of money I deem it appropriate to award a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards permanent disability. The evidence on record clearly establish that the claimant underwent an operation and he was in-patient in the hospital for twenty days and thereafter he was treated as outpatient. He was advised not to walk at least for five months. PW.2 in his evidence categorically states that on 28.10.1998 the claimant underwent an operation wherein his femur was fixed with nail and a foreign body was present in his leg even on the date when he gave evidence i.e. in the month of November, 2007. The
medical record clearly shows that the petitioner had sustained one fracture injury which was operated upon. Having regard to the nature of injuries sustained and the period for which he was bed ridden I deem it appropriate to award a sum of Rs.30,000/towards pain and suffering.
Calculated on the aforesaid base, the compensation would be payable on the headings namely transport charges, extra nourishment, attendant charges, medical expenses, incidental charges, loss of earnings, permanent disability and pain and suffering would be Rs.1,76,171/- which rounded it of to Rs.1,76,000/-.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the compensation from Rs.67,000/- to Rs.1,76,000/-. The enhanced amount will carry an interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending in this appeal, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________ JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR
07.08.2014 gkv
[1] 1995 (1) ACC 281 [2] MACD 2011 (SC) 33 [3] (2012) 12 SCC 274
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal needs to be enhanced in a motor accident case involving personal injury.
Whether the assessed amounts for medical expenses, loss of earnings, and non-pecuniary damages are just and equitable.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R.D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control India Private LimitedExplained¶17
1995 (1) ACC 281
Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and anotherApplied¶18
MACD 2011 (SC) 33
K. Suresh V. New India Assurance Company Limited and anotherReferred¶43
(2012) 12 SCC 274 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner
First Respondent
Second Respondent
Third Respondent
Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation
C. Praveen Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
